Question: Do evolutionists lack machismo?

Question: Are atheists/evolutionists men filled with courage, truth, and conviction or cowardly pseudo intellectual pantywaists?

To help answer this question, let's take a look at the leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins and consider this excerpt from Richarddawkins.net that was quoted from a column at Independent.ie:

"So Mary Kenny thinks that there are more atheist men than women, and that this is the result of some sort of attempt at overt manliness on their part. She really must try to pay attention - to Richard Dawkins, for example whom one could hardly describe as being the epitome of machismo."[1][2]

Señor Dawkins is not the epitome of machismo? Why might this be the case? Was this unfortunate situation caused by nature? Was it caused by nurture? Is it merely a reflection of his free will?

One of the definitions of machismo is an "exhilarating sense of power or strength".[3] Atheists men tend to be quarrelsome (see: Atheist factions). Unfortunately for atheist men, quarrelsomeness does not equal machismo and any man with a quarrelsome wife will attest to this fact!

Global atheism is impotent and thoroughly lacks machismo

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[7]

Currently, the entire world is filled with atheists/evolutionists who lack machismo and the weak and pathetic state of global atheism attests to this fact.

In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research:

“

The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."[8]

Ray Comfort was very gracious in his commentary concerning the discussion/debate and took Thunderf00t out to lunch after the debate.[10][11] No doubt Ray Comfort felt pity for Thunderf00t after he became a nervous wreck during the discussion/debate so he treated him to lunch. It is unknown whether Thunderf00t was able to steady his hands and calm his frazzled nerves enough to enjoy beverages during the lunch.

When Thunderf00t went mano y señoras against two Westboro Baptist Church ladies in a discussion/debate he was largely able to keep his composure.[12] However, when he went mano y mano against the Christian apologistRay Comfort he became a bowl of jelly! Of course, this is because Thunderf00t clearly lacks machismo and he was deeply intimidated by the defense of biblical Christianity brought forth by Ray Comfort.

Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.[20]

During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.

Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business
that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of
creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating
him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.[21]

When atheist Paul Kurtz was removed from a leadership post of an organization he founded, he described the event as a "shattering blow".[25] Would John Wayne have done likewise? Never! At best, "The Duke" would have said, "It's only a flesh wound." The Bible believer Chuck Norris would have done the same. The sad and ugly truth is that this is yet another example of atheists having no backbone!